Peter Coroneos is the Tasmanian State Convenor of the Australian Republican Movement and President of Republica, the University of Tasmania Society for an Australian Republic.

Let me first thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very topical and increasingly important issue, an issue which Australians will have to address in the next few years and an issue which no doubt many of you no doubt have already considered.

The republican movement is about one thing - a desire to see this county with an Australian as our head of state by the centenary of the federation and the start of the new millennium. To carry this ideal forward we believe it is important that it be discussed in a sensible and responsible fashion and in conjunction with a broad community education campaign to empower the people of Australia so that they can better evaluate the arguments for and against. It is simply too important an issue to be allowed to degenerate into hysteria and succumb to the tactics we often condemn in mainstream political debate.

Because we are democrats first and republicans second, whatever the outcome of the debate we believe it will be a positive contribution to this country. Because at the end of the day if the people have a better understanding of their system of government and how it works and their place in making it work, then democracy will be the stronger.

What is a Republic?

The Macquarie dictionary defines a republic as...

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them

   and also as...

2. a state, especially a democratic state, in which the head of government is an elected or nominated president, not a hereditary monarch.

There can be no doubt that sovereignty rests with the people. Since 1986 with the Australia Act the legal sovereignty of the United Kingdom was ended, if it hadn't already been extinguished in 1942 with the Statute of Westminister.

So we are more than three quarters the way there. Some monarchists e.g. David Daintree, regard Australia as a `crowned republic' Logically then, the only office incompatible with a full republic is the monarchy itself.

Any move to a republic would therefore, in theory at least, require only as much constitutional change necessary to remove the monarch. In practice it may be necessary to spell out a few other changes necessary to ensure that we preserve all the things that make our system of government that we value. Republicans are not about overturning the whole system. We know the system works well - and we want to keep it that way.

I want to make it very clear that I and indeed many republicans hold the Queen in great respect. I can understand why many especially the older generation who grew up with her, have a special fondness for her. A move to a republic will not be seen as an act of rejection - indeed the heir apparent stated it is the sign of a mature democracy that considers such questions for itself. It may be with great pride that the monarch watches as we take the final step in our evolution as a nation young and free.

A move to a republic does not mean turning our back on our past, or rejecting our historical connections with Britain. It is likely that like the other 60% of Commonwealth countries which are now republics, we would continue to be a full and active member of the Commonwealth of Nations, with the British monarch as titular head. That is the appropriate venue for the recognition of our undeniable links with Britain. So yes, there is a place in redefining who we are as a nation for acknowledging our roots - but acknowledging our roots does not require us to become rootbound.

We must recognise that we are a very different nation to that loose collection of colonies which federated under the Crown in 1901. Then Australia didn't even consider itself independent from mother England. We looked to Great Britain for direction, they approved all our laws and indeed made laws on our behalf. They called us to war and dutifully we followed. Most of our population were then British born, and still considered Britain their true home. Most of our trade was with Britain.

But times have changed. Now our population is a mix of people form many nations, all of whom love this country and contribute to it as their own, because it is their own. Our trade with Britain has changed. It sees its future in Europe, ours in Asia. So it is proper that we look again as we approach 100 years of nationhood to redefine ourselves to recast our image and assume our role as a fully fledged nation beholden to none, tied to none, independent and free.

A move to a republic, where our head of state is not the monarch of another country determined by birth, limited by gender and religion, but one of us - someone in whom we can look up to as an expression of what it means to be an Australian - representing us and noon else. Who can travel abroad on OUR behalf and not another nation, without raising questions as to who they really represent. Someone who lives here and is accessible. Someone who provides moral leadership, wise counsel and is aware of our day to day affairs and lifestyles.

I would like to turn briefly to address some of the fears that some people raise and attempt to dispel them.

Won't it lead to instability if we remove the Queen?

A monarchy in itself is no guarantee of stability. Look at Fiji, Northern Ireland - both had the Queen as head of state, yet look what happened.

Conversely there are republics like Switzerland, Singapore, Austria - economically well developed and politically stable.

The point is stability is not dependent on the system of government per se; it is dependent on the people. Our opponents in somehow suggesting there is no need for change, concede that the Queen performs very little practical function today. This is an argument I have never understood - on the one hand she has only a symbolic role, and one that Australians increasingly find difficult to relate to, yet on the other they claim that her presence somehow bestows an aura of stability over our everyday political life.

I can hardly imagine an anarchist hell bent on violent insurrection at the last minute holding back for fear of what Her Majesty might think - much less do (since it is clear under our laws she could not do much).

So often we hear the cry, if it `ain't broke don't fix it'.

Well I have to say with that sort of attitude we deny ourselves forever the right to strive for excellence, to be the best we can be. I suggest that kind of attitude is a recipe for mediocrity, a justification for complacency, an ode to apathy. It denies the basic human need to improve one's lot in life. We feel sorry for countries who seem to lack this drive, the ability to provide for themselves and get ahead in the world, but our opponents prescribe the very same for us. If the great innovators and creators, artists, inventors, composers and leaders of this world - the people who went against the status quo, followed their dreams and visions had all succumbed to the `ain't broke' school of thought... what sort of civilisation would we have?

The fact is it is broke. It is broke because the institution of the monarchy is unrepresentative of Australian ideals and aspirations including egalitarianism - no one is inherently better than anyone else. Furthermore, it is inherently undemocratic and as an institution would actually offend both our constitution S.116 and our laws (equal opportunity, etc.).

In truth no Australian child can ever aspire to be our head of state - sure they could aspire to the political role of Prime Minister, but not the symbolic moral, apolitical role of guidance, an embodiment of the nation - indeed the type of role that the Queen would excel in if only she were one of us. Unlike some monarchies where at least the King or Queen is of that country, the truth is that while we may have a Queen of Australia, but we don't have an Australian Queen. I'm sure neither she nor Prince of Wales consider themselves even remotely Australian - and why should they?

Is the denial of an need to change really a manifestation of the classic cultural cringe in another form? The time has long past to shake off the stigma of our origins as a former convict colony ; not good enough in our own right, a land of opportunists, ne'er do wells, uncultured rednecks; always looking to the mother country for leadership, advice and direction, for the civilisation that we were somehow unable to generate internally.

The fact is we can no longer afford the self deprecating indulgence of opting out of of our national destiny. Look around at the nations that are moving ahead. they are not hamstrung by self doubt, burdened by a past. Their vision is clearly focussed on the future, pursuing relentlessly a better place in the world for the benefit of all their people.

As republicans, proud to be Australians, valuing as we do all the good things of our present system of government, committed to democracy in its fullest sense, we believe the time has come to take the final small but symbolically important step of providing the Australia of the new millennium with an Australian as head of state. We can do it if we have the will. I ask you to think about this and if and when you feel ready, to help make this dream a reality.

Thank you.